Cultivated Meat Study: Media Coverage Shapes Regulatory Progress, May Have Caused Approval ‘Slowdown’

Researchers have uncovered eight themes that prevailed in the media coverage of the USDA’s first two approvals of cultivated meat in 2023, which had implications.

Is cultivated meat ‘real meat’? Does it pose any benefits? Is it an inevitable, necessary marker of change to the food system?

If you were reading the coverage of the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) approval of Upside Foods and Eat Just’s cultivated chicken products in summer 2023, the answer to all of these questions would likely have been yes.

In the two years since, however, the narrative has shifted dramatically, as misinformation-fuelled attempts to ban cultivated meat flood the US legislature, and the rise of the manosphere and concerns about ultra-processed food have helped conventional meat make a consumption comeback.

How the media frames a story has wide-ranging implications for policy and public opinion. For example, many people remain unaware of livestock’s significant impact on global greenhouse gas emissions, which is hardly surprising given that only 7% of stories about climate change mention animal agriculture at all. This media framing issue is true for cultivated meat, too, and the many other terms it is known by.

“The optimistic framing of cell-cultivated meat as a more ethical and sustainable alternative notwithstanding, significant uncertainties and political resistance persist in media narratives, which likely influence regulatory pathways and consumer acceptance,” researchers from Tufts University write in a new study published in the Future Foods journal.

Coverage of USDA’s approval of cultivated meat is largely positive

The study analysed 34 articles from leading publications – including the New York Times, the Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal – and found eight prevailing themes in the coverage.

The most common theme was the description of cultivated meat as “real meat”, which appeared in 92% of the stories. Most journalists defined cultivated meat through its production in facilities and termed it “lab-grown”, while simultaneously arguing that it is real meat, effectively differentiating it from plant-based alternatives.

A similar share of stories (91%) discussed the benefits of cultivated meat, most often discussing the emissions, land and water benefits these proteins present. “Removing animal suffering from the act of eating meat was a core talking point,” the study also found, as were health benefits, efficiency, food security, reduced antibiotic use, and increased choice for consumers.

Another major theme revolved around the technical feasibility of cultivated meat, with 79% of articles highlighting the challenge of scaling production while reducing production costs.

Some 71% of articles, meanwhile, talked about the taste experience of cultivated meat. There were suggestions that growing acceptance among the public is a “good bet”, though one carnivore said she’d “rather eat [her] shoe” instead. Others who had actually tasted it likened it to eating conventional chicken, with some room for textural improvements.

One positive frame that appeared in 61% of the stories put cultivated meat in the context of ecological damage and growing meat demand. Reporters highlighted the climate impact of the livestock industry, drew parallels with the popularity of vegan meat alternatives, and noted how large meat processors like Tyson and Cargill had invested in startups in this space.

Political and cultural themes were less common across coverage

In 76% of the analysed reporting, two opposing frames persisted. One constructed cultivated meat as a “groundbreaking”, necessary, and good innovation that would eventually replace conventional meat, and the other described it as unnecessary and problematic.

“As a result, readers consuming articles where both frames are simultaneously offered might be left with a sense of uncertainty, or even ambivalence, surrounding the ‘true’ meaning of cell-cultivated meat,” the researchers wrote.

Certain hints of the political upheaval we see today existed in 2023, too, with 68% of stories discussing this theme. Safety and labelling dominated coverage about the USDA’s regulation of cultivated meat, while some suggested it paved the way for other countries to follow.

However, discussions about labelling showed political opposition to calling these proteins “meat”, with lawmakers in Texas, Chile and Italy looking to restrict labelling or ban their sale (the latter was successful in its effort, despite being unlawful). Fox News portrayed it as a “vested interest” of the left.

Overall, concerns about cultivated meat were the least commonly discussed theme in the analysed reporting. Only 53% of articles were found to do so. Some referred to bogus studies arguing that it’s worse for the environment, others warned of “a range of unknowns” and “unforeseen dangers”, and yet others were worried about the safety, naturalness and nutritional quality of these proteins.

The fate of farmers was a major talking point too, with some believing cultivated meat could “take local farmers and ranchers out of the equation”. Another viewpoint that permeates is that these foods are only for the rich, with Fox News quoting a chef saying: “Only the elites are going to be able to try it and tell their friends about it.”

Cultivated meat coverage is shaping regulation

The researchers argue that the “media’s construction of the emerging meaning system of cell-cultivated meat” has both political and regulatory implications, and that this actively shapes consumer trust in the industry. “The reporting on this is widely believed to have brought added scrutiny to the process, resulting in a two-year slowdown,” they note.

It was only this March when Mission Barns became the third company to receive FDA approval for cultivated meat in the US (it’s still awaiting the USDA green light). That was swiftly followed by the FDA’s clearance of Wildtype’s cultured salmon (which doesn’t require USDA review) last month.

The news coverage analysed in the study demonstrated that cultivated chicken is “appropriately inspected, approved, and regulated”; in addition, it discussed political contentions regarding its labelling and sales, which have “only grown since we started writing this paper”, the researchers argue.

Indeed, six US states have now passed laws banning cultivated meat, and 15 have proposed restrictive bills this year alone. Globally, Hungary has taken major steps to ban these proteins, but was blocked by fellow EU member states and the European Commission.

“The discussion of the policy debates and contentious political meanings surrounding cell-cultivated products may imply a precarious outlook for the future of cellular agriculture,” the study states, adding that for some people, the discourse about cultivated meat products has become “confounded with preexisting political identities”.

“Differences in perception of cellular agriculture across the political spectrum should be explored in further research for a better understanding of the emerging political meanings associated with this novel technology,” the researchers write.

“Improved regulatory processes, awareness of labelling guidance, creating standards of identity, and transparent quality assurance in a collaborative industry-government framework could perhaps address these concerns constructively while also fostering competition.”